Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, Detainee, Camp Delta, et al. v. Barack Obama, President of the United States, et al.

Court	United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States
Case number	No. 10-5319
Decision title	Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:04-cv-01254)
Decision date	14 October 2011
Parties	Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif et al. Barack Obama et al.
Categories	Terrorism
Links	Appeal judgment
Other countries involved	Pakistan Yemen

Summary

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia granted the petition and ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US the government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful. The US Government appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010. The Court of Appeals considered that the intelligence report, which stood as central evidence against Latif, was entitled to a presumption of regularity and the inconsistencies of the Report are likely the result of imperfect translations. The Court of Appeal also found inconsistencies in Latif’s account of the events. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeals reversed the granted habeas corpus petition.

Procedural history

On 27 July 2004, the Petitioners of the present case filed for a writ of habeas corpus, in order to obtain a judicial determination on the legality of their detention, arguing that the US Government had no justification for their confinement.

Pursuant to the Petitioners filing, the US Government filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their claims because all of the detainees were non-US nationals, and were being held outside the territory of the United States.

On 31 January 2005, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion, finding that the Petitioners have a right to due process stemming from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 463, 31 January 2005.

In order to grant the Petitioners the right to appeal the decision of 31 January 2005, the District Court, on 3 February 2005, ordered the stay of proceedings pending the resolution of the Petitioners’ appeal. See also In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, No. 04-12544 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2005).

In light of the stay of proceedings, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction requiring the Government to provide the Petitioners’ counsel with 30 days’ notice if it intends to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The District Court granted the motion on 29 March 2005.

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful.

Related developments

On 11 June 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal from Latif.

See: Supreme Court of the United States, Latif, Adnan Farhan Abdul v. Obama, President of U.S., et al., Order Nr. 11-1027, Order List: 567 U.S., 11 June 2012, p.7. See also A. Liptak, 'Justices Reject Detainees’ Appeal, Leaving Cloud Over Earlier Guantánamo Ruling', The New York Times, 11 June 2012; and B. Mears, 'Supreme Court Declines Fresh Review of Guantanamo Detainee Issue', CNN, 11 June 2012.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif died at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba on 8 September 2012.

See also C. Savage, 'Military Identifies Guantánamo Detainee Who Died', The New York Times, 11 September 2012; and United States Southern Command Public Affairs, 'NEWS RELEASE: Joint Task Force Guantanamo Releases Deceased Detainee’s Identity', Press Release, 11 September 2012.

Legally relevant facts

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, also known as Allal Ab Aljallil Abd al Rahman, is a Yemeni national who was arrested in Pakistan, together with twelve other Yemeni nationals. They were all arrested by the Pakistani authorities as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nations in 2001 and 2002. The Petitioners contended that they have travelled to Pakistan for religious, medical and employment reasons. The Pakistani police transferred them to the United States military, which transferred them to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002, where they were held as enemy combatants (p. 2).

The Detainees petitioned for writs of habeas corpus on 27 July 2004, seeking a judicial determination on the legality of their detention and arguing that there is no justification for their arrest, transportation and continued incarceration. On 21 July 2010, the District Court for the District of Columbia granted Latif’s habeas corpus petition for lack of evidence, holding that the US Government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation. The central evidence brought before the District Court by the US Government was an intelligence report allegedly proving that Latif incriminated himself shortly after his capture. The District Court concluded that there are substantial doubts as to whether the report accurately reflects the words of Latif and the incriminating facts (pp. 3-4).

Core legal questions

Were there any errors in the District Court’s assessment of the specific factual determinations?
Did the District Court erroneously grant the habeas corpus petition?

Court's holding and analysis

The Court of Appeals re-examined the intelligence report, which was the central evidence against Latif before the lower District Court. It considered that “[b]ecause the Report is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and because the Report, if reliable, proves the lawfulness of Latif’s detention, [the Court of Appeals] can only uphold the district court's grant of habeas if Latif has rebutted the Government's evidence with more convincing evidence of his own. Viewed together, both the internal flaws Latif identifies in the Report and the other evidence he uses to attack its reliability fail to meet this burden” (p. 20). The Court found that “[t]he inconsistencies in the Report may suggest a document produced on the field by imperfect translators or transcribers, but they do not prove the Report's description of Latif’s incriminating statements is fundamentally unreliable” (p. 27).

The Court of Appeals found inconsistencies in Latif’s testimony and considered that the District Court did not give probative value to certain evidence. As such, “[t]he district court's failure to address certain relevant evidence leaves [the Court of Appeals] with no confidence in its conclusions about the evidence it did consider” (p. 50).

Accordingly, the majority of the Court of Appeal reached the conclusion to: “vacate and remand the district court's grant of habeas for further proceedings” (p. 53).

The ruling was accompanied by a dissent from one of the judges, arguing that the Government report remains unreliable and the Court’s decision could have a negative impact on the Guantánamo detainees’ future right to file for habeas corpus writs (p. 68 et seq.).

Further analysis

'D.C. Circuit Holds that Government Intelligence Reports Are Entitled to a Presumption of Regularity–Latif v. Obama, 666 F.3d 746 (D.C. Cir. 2011)', Harvard Law Review, 2012, Vol. 125, pp. 2193-2200;
B.L. Garrett, ‘Habeas Corpus and Due Process’, Cornell Law Review, 2012, Vol. 98, No. 1;
R.M. Chesney, ‘Who May Be Held? Military Detention Through the Habeas Lens’, Boston College Law Review, 2011, Vol. 52, pp. 769 et seq..

Related cases

Supreme Court of the United States, Rasul et al v. Bush et al., No. 03-334 (joined with no. 03-343), Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, 28 June 2004.
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. Bush et al., Civil Action No. 04-1254, Memorandum Opinion, 29 March 2005.
Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene et al. v. Bush et al.,Civil Actions Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196, 12 June 2008.
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. Barack H. Obama et al., Civil Action No. 04-1254, Memorandum Opinion, 21 July 2010.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Ghaleb Nassar Al-Bihani, Appellant, v. Barack Obama, President of the United States, et al, Appellees, No. 09-5051, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Petition for Rehearing En Banc, 31 August 2010.
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Almerfedi v. Obama, Case No. 10-5291, Decision, 10 June 2011.

Additional materials

The New York Times, 'Reneging on Justice at Guantánamo', 19 November 2011;
B. Mears, 'Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Guantanamo Detainee', CNN, 10 November 2011;
J.P. Putney, 'DC Circuit Overturns Release of Guantanamo Detainee', Jurist, 11 November 2011;
D.C. Circuit Review, 'Harvard Law Review on the Presumption of Regularity for Government Intelligence Reports', 26 June 2012;
A. Worthington, 'As Judges Kill Off Habeas Corpus for the Guantánamo Prisoners, Will the Supreme Court Act?', The Future of Freedom Foundation, 28 November 2011.

Social media links

For further comments on the Supreme Court’s denial of the writ of certiorari, see J. Hafetz, 'Assessing Length: The Blind Spot in Habeas Review of Guantanamo Detentions', Opinio Juris, 21 June 2012.